- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules GST Registration Can't Be Denied To Out Of State Applicants

Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules GST Registration Can't Be Denied To Out Of State Applicants
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration cannot be denied solely because the applicant belongs to another state.
The Division Bench, comprising Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and Harinath N., stated that while concerns about potential tax evasion may be valid, they cannot serve as a valid reason to refuse registration under the Andhra Pradesh GST Act, as there are no restrictions preventing individuals from other states from registering in Andhra Pradesh.
In the case at hand, the petitioner, seeking GST registration for a business located in Rajamahendravaram, had their application rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. The rejection was based on the argument that the assessee did not belong to Andhra Pradesh, and the authorized representative also hailed from outside the state.
The department argued that granting registration to a non-resident of the state could lead to tax evasion, but the court emphasized that mere apprehension, no matter how valid, could not infringe upon the petitioner’s right to conduct business in the state. The Court highlighted that Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to establish and operate a business anywhere in India.
Given that the rejection was not backed by any legal provision, the High Court allowed the petition and directed that the GST registration be granted.